Paris and the Presidential Election

A Times Square sign on Nov. 14, after the attacks in Paris.CreditTimothy A. Clary/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The Paris attacks — as well as developments in Brussels, Egypt and Mali — may have improved Republican prospects in 2016.

Daily surveys conducted by Reuters/Ispos ask voters to identify the “most important problem facing the United States today.” The accompanying chart covers the period from Nov. 7 to Nov. 24 and shows the abrupt increase in public concern about terrorism immediately following the Nov. 13 assaults in Paris.

On Nov. 7, 8 percent of those polled ranked terrorism as the most important problem facing the country. More than twice as many people, 21 percent, identified the economy as more troubling, and 11 percent identified unemployment as their gravest concern. By Nov. 24, 27 percent of respondents named terrorism as their primary worry, compared to 15 percent who identified the economy, and 10 percent who named unemployment. If terror remains this high in voters’ consciousness a year from now, it is likely to pose a major problem for Democrats.

The Republican advantage on this topic has been substantial for some time. In a series of four polls conducted from September 2014 to February 2015, CBS News asked, “Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to do a better job dealing with terrorism?”

Voters preferred the Republican Party by an average of 21 points, 52-31.

Republican strategists are acutely aware of Democratic vulnerability on matters of national security and, by extension, on foreign policy in general.

CBS News conducted three surveys in 2014 that asked specifically about foreign affairs: “Regardless of how you usually vote, do you think the Republican Party or the Democratic Party is more likely to do a better job on U.S. foreign policy?” The Republican Party consistently held an 11-point advantage, 49-38.

In recent months, Obama’s unfavorable rating on foreign policy over the eight most recent polls averaged 54.1 percent, compared with 37.8 percent favorable, according to RealClearPolitics.

From the 1968 election of Richard M. Nixon to the 2004 George W. Bush campaign, Republicans have demonstrated expertise in tarring liberalism with softness on crime and insufficient vigilance on terrorism.

The power of threatened violence to benefit Republicans was demonstrated in the 2002 Georgia Senate contest. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican challenger, used the Democrat Max Cleland’s support for unionizing workers in the Department of Homeland Security to portray the Democratic incumbent as weak on national security. This despite the fact that Cleland had lost most of both legs and part of one arm as an Army captain in Vietnam, and that Chambliss had never served in the military.

Because of the unusual character of the party’s leading candidates this year, Republicans may not be able to fully capitalize on the party’s advantage on security issues.

The views that some of the candidates have recently espoused — especially those of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz but also Marco Rubio — could obviate the party’s advantage on terrorism. Jeb Bush’s mainstream credentials and more nuanced stands could position him to more effectively capitalize on public fears, but his candidacy has been on a steady downward trajectory.

I will stop illegal immigration. We’ll build a wall on the southern border. And yes, I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS. We’ll rebuild our military and make it so strong no one, and I mean no one, will mess with us.

Ted Cruz, in turn, has a television ad that shows a scorpion crawling in the desert. “There’s a scorpion in the desert,” the narrator says as the camera focuses on the curved stinger:

For most of us, its venom is a clear and deadly threat. But others refuse to even speak its name. Since the scorpion seeks our destruction, isn’t it time we recognize the scorpion for what it is before it strikes again?

In the volatile contest for the Republican nomination, Trump, Cruz, Rubio and Chris Christie are currently the major beneficiaries of the new emphasis on law and order. Nationally, Trump’s level of support among Republican voters on Nov. 12, the day before the Paris attacks, was 24.8 percent as calculated by RealClear Politics. In the two most recent surveys, both conducted over the period from Nov. 16 to Nov. 19, Trump’s national support has risen to 30 percent. Cruz began November at 7 percent nationally and has risen to 11.3 as of Nov. 23. In Iowa, Cruz has now surged from 10 percent to 23 percent, just behind Trump at 25 percent.

Ben Carson, one of the least bellicose candidates and a candidate without foreign policy expertise (not that Trump has any), has been the big loser. Nationally, Carson has fallen from 24.4 percent to 19.8 percent since the attacks, and suffered similar declines in New Hampshire and Iowa.

In polls on general election match-ups, RealClearPolitics found that Hillary Rodham Clinton led Trump by an average of 4.4 points in the six most recent surveys from late October to Nov. 19, 47.6 to 43.2; she led Cruz by 1.3 points, 45.8 to 44.5; Christie by 0.7 points, 44.7 to 44; and she loses to Rubio by 1.4 points, 44.6 to 46.

Robert Shapiro, a political scientist at Columbia and expert on polling, wrote me:

I interpret it as close for Hillary and Trump, with Hillary still probably with an edge. It looks close with Rubio, Christie, and Carson who have been closing the gap.

Clinton has recently toughened her foreign policy stance. In a speech on Nov. 19 at the Council on Foreign Relations she called for more aggressive military action against the Islamic State than Obama has been willing to approve.

For Clinton, any sign that she is abandoning liberal stands could prove damaging during the primaries. She is running for the presidential nomination in a Democratic Party that has moved well to the left since 2000.

As the accompanying Gallup graphic shows, the share of Democrats who identify themselves as liberals has grown from 29 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2014. At the same time, the share of independents and Republicans calling themselves liberals has been stagnant over those 14 years.

Clinton’s willingness, or lack thereof, to stay the liberal course in the general election will reflect the political resilience of the Democratic coalition that displayed its strength in the 2008 presidential election. The more Clinton can rely on this coalition for victory, the less pressure she will be under to move toward the center.

Republicans, meanwhile, are relishing a general election in which they hope the threat of terrorism will deal a lethal blow to Clinton.

“I think we are seeing a general retreat of liberalism in the United States and in Europe, and a fairly dramatic shift to the right, if you will, politically and ideologically,” Patrick J. Buchanan declared last week in a taping for “The Cats Roundtable,” John Catsimatidis’s New York radio show:

These events are producing a tremendous rise in nationalism, I think in tribalism in Europe, of nations’ desiring to be themselves, securing their borders, and almost as well of Caesarism — in other words, the look for a strong leader, someone who will deal with these devils who came to kill us and who will deal with them in a tough way.

For Republicans, 2016 will prove to be no normal election, because it will confirm that the new America is here and that the counterrevolution has lost. That is why I expect the result to be shattering for the Republican Party as we know it.

Terrorist attacks, especially if they are reinforced by new assaults, have the potential to undermine the legitimacy of a tolerant liberalism. Based on the present risk of terrorist violence here and abroad, this is a threat Democrats cannot avoid. The goal of terrorism is to destroy the liberal state. If Clinton and candidates up and down the ticket cannot persuade voters that a Democratic administration can protect the lives of American citizens, the damage will extend far beyond one political party and one presidential campaign.